• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Veritigo_X

Member
NeoXChaos said:
what state ballots can he get on without soar losers laws preventing him?
Click to expand...

CNN did an article on this: http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/politics/trump-third-party-run-barriers/

"The laws for presidential elections are sometimes different and I think always in the less restrictive direction," Kang said. "Even some states with outright prohibitions on sore loser candidates for Congress or other offices have an exemption for presidential candidates. So applied to Trump's case, there's a lot less in the way of an independent run for a president than there would be for Congress or most other offices."
Click to expand...

"There's precedents from just about every state that has a sore loser law that they don't apply to primaries," Winger said. "If I were Donald Trump and I knew I was going to be running outside the major presidential parties, I would not file for the Texas primary and South Dakota, and probably the Ohio one, although there's a flaw in the Ohio law."

Winger said the Ohio law specifically prohibits a sore-loser candidate from appearing as a minor candidate by petition, but minor party bids are typically nominations.

Brown said when he was doing research for Johnson's Libertarian campaign in 2012, he found five states that were actively enforcing sore loser laws. including Michigan and Mississippi. He argued an unsuccessful challenge to Michigan's law, which the court ultimately upheld in part because candidates can run as independents under the statute.
Click to expand...

"If you're well-financed, it's hard, no doubt, but people have done it," Brown said. "Ross Perot did, John Anderson did it, Gary Johnson came real close to doing it recently. I think Trump could do it."
Click to expand...

Sounds like it isn't as bad as people are saying, at least compared to congressional runs. Some states might end up going to court over it.
 
F

FloydtheFathead

Member
Having a rant here like Corey the other day..

Trapped in the car on the way to Florida, stuck listening to AM radio (Glenn Beck) and a rant on protests by BLM from my father and brother about the "victim"(their emphasis, not mine) on how he "shouldn't have been on pcp and in the street and he wouldn't have been shot" of course, they ignore the 16 times part..

Welp, only 9 hours to go in the car for this...

fuck
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
B

BertramCooper

Banned
Even if he's excluded from handful of state ballots he'll still get a ton of write-in votes in those states.

If he's running as an independent, it's clearly no longer about winning - it's about getting revenge on the GOP establishment. And he can still do that even without having his name on a ballot.
 
B

Butts-a-plenty

Banned
T

Teggy

Member
Those Bernie ads on TPM are super obnoxious. I was going to vote for him, but no way now. I can put up with a lot of things, but not intrusive web ads.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Um, guys? New YouGov/Economist poll?

Trump 37
Rubio 15
Cruz 11
Ben 10

Rest in single digits. I'm scared.

Edit: Also, Trump in his highest ever aggregate polling in huffpo pollster
 
M

Makai

Member
RustyNails said:
Um, guys? New YouGov/Economist poll?

Trump 37
Rubio 15
Cruz 11
Ben 10

Rest in single digits. I'm scared.
Click to expand...

B7egfq8.png


Fucking all-time high
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
The head to head polling is interesting too:

Carson 49 - Cruz 51
Carson 51 - Rubio 49
Carson 40 - Trump 60
Cruz 54 - Rubio 46
Cruz 41 - Trump 59
Rubio 45 - Trump 55

Rubio's stock on PredictIt is plummeting lol
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Teggy said:
I'm more concerned about this, which shows Trump overtaking Clinton nationally after she was way ahead in previous polls :(

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/11/20/fox-news-poll-2016-matchups-syrian-refugees/
Click to expand...

It's a year out, those numbers are worthless.

Veritigo_X said:
The head to head polling is interesting too:

Carson 49 - Cruz 51
Carson 51 - Rubio 49
Carson 40 - Trump 60
Cruz 54 - Rubio 46
Cruz 41 - Trump 59
Rubio 45 - Trump 55

Rubio's stock on PredictIt is plummeting lol
Click to expand...

I just saw his numbers drop like a rock when I checked on my bet, I was wondering what caused it. I guess I know.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Teggy said:
Yeah, I know it's far out but the trend is pretty weird. I don't know why people would start preferring Trump over Clinton when both are known pretty well.
Click to expand...

This page doesn't load for me. Is it TV coverage or something? If so, there's a big difference between Fox News polls that they do on their website (which are partner polls and usually pretty good) and Fox News polls shown on the Fox News Channel. They're not going to put a poll on TV where Hillary beats Trump. Consider it basically an internal. (Because the important characteristic of an internal or a paid poll is that if it had a bad result for you, you wouldn't release it.)
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
pigeon said:
This page doesn't load for me. Is it TV coverage or something? If so, there's a big difference between Fox News polls that they do on their website (which are partner polls and usually pretty good) and Fox News polls shown on the Fox News Channel. They're not going to put a poll on TV where Hillary beats Trump. Consider it basically an internal. (Because the important characteristic of an internal or a paid poll is that if it had a bad result for you, you wouldn't release it.)
Click to expand...

Yup. This is why I'm always moderately suspiscious of polls conducted by partisan organizations or sponsored by partisan sources; particularly when they don't release their tables. PPP is another one which often does this.
 
T

Teggy

Member
pigeon said:
This page doesn't load for me. Is it TV coverage or something? If so, there's a big difference between Fox News polls that they do on their website (which are partner polls and usually pretty good) and Fox News polls shown on the Fox News Channel. They're not going to put a poll on TV where Hillary beats Trump. Consider it basically an internal. (Because the important characteristic of an internal or a paid poll is that if it had a bad result for you, you wouldn't release it.)
Click to expand...

Here's the particulars:
Anderson Robbins Research (D) / Shaw & Company Research (R) Interviews Conducted: N = 1,016 registered voters (506 landline, 510 cellphone) November 16-19, 2015

The poll had a very big lead for Clinton in the past and has shrunk and reversed over time.




Democrat Hillary Clinton Republican Donald Trump (Other) (Wouldn’t vote) (Don’t know)
16-19 Nov 15 41% 46 2 7 5
PAST TREND
10-12 Oct 15* 40% 45 4 7 3
20-22 Sep 15 46% 42 3 7 2
11-13 Aug 15 47% 42 2 7 3
21-23 Jun 15* 51% 34 3 9 3
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
Crab said:
Yup. This is why I'm always moderately suspiscious of polls conducted by partisan organizations or sponsored by partisan sources; particularly when they don't release their tables. PPP is another one which often does this.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with polls commissioned by partisan sources. PPP's gotta get paid too. They aren't going to jeopardize their reputation by deliberately skewing the results to favor their patron.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
This polling is making the Thanksgiving holiday break even better. Trump dominating, Carson plummeting, and the establishment running to Ted Cruz of all people.

And yet the RNC wants to go all-in on taking out Trump?

Please proceed, Governor.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Veritigo_X said:
I don't have a problem with polls commissioned by partisan sources. PPP's gotta get paid too. They aren't going to jeopardize their reputation by deliberately skewing the results to favor their patron.
Click to expand...

They won't jeopardize the results of any given poll they produce, but they will usually only release polls that are favourable to them. That doesn't affect the validity of any given poll they produce, but it does skew things like poll aggregators because if a company only releases polls that are on the favourable side of the margin of error, then while every individual poll is within the margin of error the aggregation of their polls is not, and has bias. I think this is one of the issues Nate Silver has with PPP as well.
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
Crab said:
They won't jeopardize the results of any given poll they produce, but they will usually only release polls that are favourable to them. That doesn't affect the validity of any given poll they produce, but it does skew things like poll aggregators because if a company only releases polls that are on the favourable side of the margin of error, then while every individual poll is within the margin of error the aggregation of their polls is not, and has bias. I think this is one of the issues Nate Silver has with PPP as well.
Click to expand...

Does PPP have a history of withholding partner polls if requested? Pigeon was talking about withholding polls to a larger audience via their TV station vs their website.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Veritigo_X said:
Does PPP have a history of withholding partner polls if requested? Pigeon was talking about withholding polls to a larger audience via their TV station vs their website.
Click to expand...

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/09/reflecting-on-the-colorado-recalls.html

Both Nate Cohn and Nate Silver allege they do it quite regularly. No good pollster should *ever* withhold the release of a poll, even if they suspect it to be wrong. It's the same reason I don't trust Survation in the UK.
 
T

titiklabingapat

Member
One of the biggest perks of having Trump win the nomination (my original horse was Jeb! but have already come around to Trump...but alas, it's too late to change votes) is that this might have the unintended consequence of making Texas slightly competitive and accelerate the purpling.

It might not turn purple anytime soon but having Trump on the ticket will probably help re-establish the Democratic machine in Texas. Latinos and the big cities (stronghold of other minorities plus white liberals) might turn out in unprecedented numbers. Even if Dems don't win, it will still seed the organization for the future and start having turnout a machine to help establish a Texan bench of credible national candidates for the Democrats.
 
R

Retromelon

Member
Makai said:
B7egfq8.png


Fucking all-time high
Click to expand...
there is still a month and a week. there is no need to be upset.

CBHMoyj.png


rubio must get a heart attack at the next debate.

fuck i'm panicking, I have the best avatar in poligaf and only metaphoreus comes close and it would be a tragedy to deprive you all of it
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
Trump isn't winning shit. People are really setting themselves up for disappointment. GOP front runner today in 2008? Rudy (by double digits!). 2012? Newt.

And in the early states in 08 Romney had a 15 point lead today in NH, and 7 point lead in Iowa. He went on to win neither state. And both primaries were closer in date in 2008 than they are this cycle.

Both Iowa and NH dramatically shifted in polling their last month for the open primaries in both 08 & 12 after all.
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
Cheebo said:
Trump isn't winning shit. People are really setting themselves up for disappointment. GOP front runner today in 2008? Rudy (by double digits!). 2012? Newt.

And in the early states in 08 Romney had a 15 point lead today in NH, and 7 point lead in Iowa. He went on to win neither state. And both primaries were closer in 2008 than they are this cycle.
Click to expand...

And how long were Rudy and Newt frontrunners?
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
Poodlestrike said:
And how long were Rudy and Newt frontrunners?
Click to expand...

Rudy was the front runner of nearly the entire 2008 cycle nationally until the actual primaries began.

Right now my prediction is:
Iowa: Cruz
New Hampshire: Rubio

Rubio winning it all after a close battle with Cruz for months. Trump and Carson completely collapse after they fail to win either Iowa or New Hampshire.
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
Cheebo said:
Rudy was the front runner of nearly the entire 2008 cycle nationally until the actual primaries began.
Click to expand...

Then hey, who knows, maybe Trump'll flame out too.

But this is a dramatically different electorate and circumstance than 2008, and I don't think that past results are a good predictor of future performance right now. Trump's had any number of "okay, NOW he's done for sure, right" moments. None of them did him in. I doubt anything is going to crop up in the next month and change that'll do the trick.

I doubt that losing Iowa and NH would do him in in and of themselves. He's got a pretty impressive ground game, I think he'd keep in it and rely on that.
 
M

Makai

Member
Poodlestrike said:
Then hey, who knows, maybe Trump'll flame out too.

But this is a dramatically different electorate and circumstance than 2008, and I don't think that past results are a good predictor of future performance right now. Trump's had any number of "okay, NOW he's done for sure, right" moments. None of them did him in. I doubt anything is going to crop up in the next month and change that'll do the trick.
Click to expand...
Losing two states could do it.
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
Cheebo said:
Losing the two first states would end his campaign, no question. You can't survive that 1-2 punch.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. Clinton did. (Bill, obviously)

In fact, now that I stop and think about it, Trump is almost uniquely qualified to survive it. No sense of shame, massive ego. Most people drop out after that because of basic defeatism, I doubt he'd break so easily.
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
Veritigo_X said:
Did any particular event cause Giuliani's drop in polls? Or was it just the fact that the primary was getting closer?
Click to expand...

Not focusing on Iowa and NH. Losing both killed his campaign. He became forgotten after that while McCain & Huckabee got boosted. It killed Romney's campaign for the most part too.
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
Poodlestrike said:
Sure you can. Clinton did. (Bill, obviously)
Click to expand...
I know you know that isn't true. Iowa wasn't contended that year. It was just NH.

There hasn't bee a single open primary in what, 40+ years that a candidate that lost both first states went on to be the nominee?

Makai said:
What about everyone else, though? Why would anyone else be allowed to continue if they didn't win a state?
Click to expand...

Everyone who didn't win one of the first two will begin quickly dropping like flies, just like every other primary.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Poodlestrike said:
Sure you can. Clinton did. (Bill, obviously)

In fact, now that I stop and think about it, Trump is almost uniquely qualified to survive it. No sense of shame, massive ego. Most people drop out after that because of basic defeatism, I doubt he'd break so easily.
Click to expand...

Clinton lost them to two different opponents, though. I might be wrong, but I don't think anyone has won both Iowa and New Hampshire but failed to win the nomination, for either party, since the current primary era.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Cheebo said:
Rudy was the front runner of nearly the entire 2008 cycle nationally until the actual primaries began.

Right now my prediction is:
Iowa: Cruz
New Hampshire: Rubio

Rubio winning it all after a close battle with Cruz for months. Trump and Carson completely collapse after they fail to win either Iowa or New Hampshire.
Click to expand...
Rudy had nothing going for him other than 9/11. Once that was known to everyone he went down pretty quickly. Huckster is a known quadrennial charlatan that uses elections to sell books. Trump and carson however, have tapped into this anti-government fever that never existed in the past. Carson melted under the spotlight, but Trump uses the spotlight like an expert. What I keep saying is that we cant follow the 08 and 12 models conclusively. The electorate is polarized to hell. The anger is so out of control that it's supporting fascism ideas now. Trump, unlike any other contender in past or present, has the party's balls firmly in his grasp. He can twist or turn. Look at RNC freaking the fuck out and making him swear allegience to the party like a bunch of little schoolchildren.

We are on very dangerous grounds. Trump is the vessel for GOP at the moment. Granted the possibility that GOP electorate wakes up from its fugue state and pulls up its pants. But the conditions on the ground make it increasingly hard for an establishment phoenix to rise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom